> > The price I have to pay for my entertainment has nothing to do with
> > the work involved in the first place - so much for artist
>compensation.

>This isn't true at all. Certainly the one-time cost and the work that goes
>into producing a high-quality movie is far greater than the amount that
>goes
>into a play by a local theater even during the entire run of a show.

Certainly more money gets burned in the production of a high-profile
Hollywood movie. I still think a movie actor should not earn the same
or more for starring in one movie than a theatre actor for an entire
season.

>The price you pay for the entertainment is proportional to the work
>involved:

I don't think so, but that's just that - my opinion. At the very least, the
price is
not proportional to the _creative_ work involved.

Sure it's more expensive to shoot a whole movie than run a small theatre
production perhaps - but is the acting really so different as to justify
differences
in paychecks in the order of magnitudes?

>[...] then we would see a bunch of crappy movies since no one could afford
>to make $150 million productions [...]

See, that's exactly what I mean. $150 million for a two hour long
entertainment
product. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

>This makes no sense. This totally disregards the value of any kind of
>intellectual property.

Got it in one. I said mine was a radical opinion. After a lot of
deliberating on the
subject of "intellectual property" I've come to the conclusion that it is an
artificial construct that we'd better do without. Information, knowledge
just isn't something that can be owned.

>consider scientists at pharmaceutical companies

IP in the sciences leads to the scientific results not being easily
accessible
by the scientific community.

>Would you say that a 10 cent blank CD is equal in value to the same cd
>with music on it?

Ultimately, yes. There is a lot of value in music and arts, I just don't
think
it is monetary value, necessarily.

When people get together and play music, they create, and what they
do has value, even monetary value if we they get someone to pay them
for the performance. Just the fact that we can make a recording and
duplicate it a million times does not change that value in my eyes.

>I think not. And how much in excess of 10 cents is to be determined by
>the market. And right now the market has settled on $10~$15.

It's the market that has settled on close to 0. What we have at the moment
is competition between "downloaded music from p2p" and "music on a CD"
Both are products, even if one is illegal by current standards. Nearly all
new
CDs have DRM which makes .mp3s not only less expensive but more
comfortable and versatile to use.

I just hope the music labels will stop ligitating and try to compete... Free
concert
ticket with the purchase of every album, exclusive artwork, excellent
quality with-
out DRM, available from online shops that ship fast and cheaply. THAT would
kill
the 'pirates'.

Case in point:

I like the Japanese duo Billy Ken, stumbled across them on a radio feed. Now
I happen
to like having CDs so I venture over to amazon.jp to order. $25? Fine. $8
shipping? Fine.
Copy protected!? No, thanks. I don't even have a CD player but keep
everything
on a server and play via Squeezebox, computer and iAudio U2.